General

Re: Agorism is funny

William — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 22:40:28 GMT

1. Why is agorism insane and inane? Insults are not arguments.

a) It already reeks of a "let's get together gang", "we gotta do something" atheist protestant universalist left wing social signaling device, which is amusing. I honestly picture the wheels grinding in Konkin's thinking about how intellectuals need to "have action" and coming up with this turkey.

b) It is a pretentious word. There is no need to be making up Hellenistic words to try to give an incoherent idea weight

c) If all it is doing is stating that black markets are not morally bad and can potentially profit someone, than it states nothing that 99% of all small business owners know and do anyway.

e) if it is some form of intellectual masturbation that is actively encouraging wide eyed left wing patriots to seek out black markets for freedom, this could cause a lot of damage to the poor SOB taking such advice. Black markets are not inherently desirable, and there is NO REASON to seek them out if you don't have to. Honestly, none what so ever. If you want to grow pot in your college dorm, sell it to to your bud, and wave your agorist flag, fine I guess, it just seems a bit silly.

2. I'm calling you a dogmatic egoist for your presumption that agorism is universalizing and moralistic in the way that Stirner 's egoism oppose

I may have been unclear, but I meant to imply it can't calculate what is good for, just like morality, socialism, etc. I wanted to stress that one ought to really question why they are doing what they are doing. I said early the point was to illustrate to "check oneself before they wreck themself"

3. Stirnerite egoism is an influence of mine

Awesome, "it is always nice to talk to a clever man"

Re: Agorism is funny

vaguelyhumanoid — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 22:25:53 GMT

I'm not saying that Stirner's ideas are dogmatic, or that you're being dogmatic for opposing agorism. I'm saying that your criticisms of agorism are based on a sort of knee-jerk opposition to anything that seems too much like a higher cause. Agorism, in the sense of ideologically aware counter-economics, does not require an ideological commitment to any sort of moralistic dogma. Also, don't just call something "insane and inane" without explaining why. Insults are not arguments.

Re: Agorism is funny

vaguelyhumanoid — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 22:22:24 GMT

1. Why is agorism insane and inane? Insults are not arguments.

2. I'm not calling you a dogmatic egoist for opposing agorism, I'm calling you a dogmatic egoist for your presumption that agorism is universalizing and moralistic in the way that Stirner 's egoism opposes, when agorism does not have to be.

3. Stirnerite egoism is an influence of mine, so don't think I'm bashing it.

Re: Agorism is funny

William — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 22:19:14 GMT

Stirner-style egoism isn't incompatible with agorist tactics. You've become a dogmatist-ironically, you're making Stirner's egoism into a fixed idea, a spook.

That is really the only thing people say about Stirner, which is kind of funny. Disagreeing with a tactic or incoherent babel makes me a fixed idea Stirnerite.

Re: Agorism is funny

William — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 22:17:25 GMT

The whole thing is kind of silly, because agorism does not present some sort of absolute moral imperative to perpetually engage in civil disobedience whenever one can

meh whateves, agorism is insane and inane on many levels. The ethics was a bit of a side bar.

Re: Agorism is funny

Brainpolice — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 22:12:08 GMT

The whole thing is kind of silly, because agorism does not present some sort of absolute moral imperative to perpetually engage in civil disobedience whenever one can. It's a strategic notion that emphasizes market-based civil disobedience, but it doesn't specifically outline a structured program for what an individual ought to do or what particular way an individual may practically nullify the effectiveness of the political system and particular laws.

In some instances, it may very well be counterproductive to engage in civil disobedience, insofar as it just brings the hammer down on oneself or one goes about it in a way that explicitly amounts to taunting. But to the extent that one can engage in it without the hammer, while creating an environment in which the hammer is less likely to be there, it can work just fine and it would make no sense to declare it pragmatically against anyone's self-interest. William is shadowboxing.

Re: Agorism is funny

vaguelyhumanoid — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 21:02:07 GMT

Stirner-style egoism isn't incompatible with agorist tactics. You've become a dogmatist-ironically, you're making Stirner's egoism into a fixed idea, a spook.

Re: Agorism is funny

William — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 05:44:24 GMT

Such a system can hardly be called a system of ethics.

Ethics can hardly be called a system.

Re: Agorism is funny

Andrew Cain — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 06:09:09 GMT

'Than let's just use the term "moral egoist" at every time every piece of advice I utilize, I note, and I do is an ever changing ethic (supposedly by the inescapable definition of the word, as much as a square must have four sides) "all and all unto itself" and at every moment unique. These ethics are than applied not even to a person, but an ever evolving mutant which is different from everything else at every moment in time, interacting with everything in an ever unique manner. These "ethics" come not from a person but from my communication and reaction to absolutely every unique thing around me at any given point in time that has been processed. It is "universally true" in the fact that every moment the universe is 100% "correct" at any given point in ever changing time (as contextualized, defined, and valued by...moi!). '

Well if they aren't applied to a person, then what use are then since the definition of ethics is a code of conduct specifying what is good and what is bad in human interaction with other humans or beings. If everything in the universal is 100% correct at any given time then there can be no concept such as 'injustice' or 'incorrectness' and without something to contrast 'justice' or 'correctness' with then these concepts lose their descriptive ability. It then resorts to a theory of not what is or isn't correct, just simply what is regardless of any sentiment toward it. Such a system can hardly be called a system of ethics.

Re: Agorism is funny

William — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:21:28 GMT

It's mostly pretentious finger-wagging at other people for making use of universals in their language

Once again, we can look at everything is a universal at all times. And that everything that exists at any given point in time is forever complete and perfect.. And at any point in time a thing is always itself, and can only be itself.

The notion of a total rebellion against "external" determinants of thought represented in those pesky universals is elitist nonsense

Once again you are catagorizing, once again "render unto Caesar", once again something isn't sublime,you feel sublime), and finally A=A. As far as elitism is concerned, do you wish to infer there is an actual alternative? I don't think there is, if I think you are using the word the way I think you are using the word, we are all egoists now.

Re: Agorism is funny

William — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:12:15 GMT

Then your anti-moralism is merely semantic in nature (a theme I've found to be rather common with "moral nihilists"), and you'd still have a problem reducing it to "advise" when it comes to ethics in the context of individual self-improvement.

Than let's just use the term "moral egoist" at every time every piece of advice I utilize, I note, and I do is an ever changing ethic (supposedly by the inescapable definition of the word, as much as a square must have four sides) "all and all unto itself" and at every moment unique. These ethics are than applied not even to a person, but an ever evolving mutant which is different from everything else at every moment in time, interacting with everything in an ever unique manner. These "ethics" come not from a person but from my communication and reaction to absolutely every unique thing around me at any given point in time that has been processed. It is "universally true" in the fact that every moment the universe is 100% "correct" at any given point in ever changing time (as contextualized, defined, and valued by...moi!).

Ethics, if you insist that they are: are ever changing, ever unique, and always correct. I don't understand how you can possibly think such a thing can be stated in words and/or is worth stating. I don't understand how you think words can suffice for any ethic you would think is worthwhile, unless you wish to bastardize, judge, and control people's actions as simply as possible. I would imagine this would be an even greater concern once politics are involved. You are simply listing something that is not worth caring about.

Likewise we can say ethics are at best not worth noting if it is nothing other than option to or not to take advise. When I tell my friend to "shave his beard", I'll be sure to file that under my "ethical" statements cabinet next time. Even still if he "listens", he really isn't "listening to me", he is doing a completely independent action in a situation via his own power calculating perhaps hundreds of other things (perhaps the "chair for my purpose" in the room played an affect on his decision) at the time, who knows. The valuation just can't be discussed. Words don't quite cut the mustard I'm afraid. There is simply no use in discussing ethics in philosophical discourse.

Oh, and just in case: the world must lie outside the world. Everything is as it is and happen as it does happen. If there is value in this world, than it is of no value. Propositions are incapable of expressing things of higher value. You can make no ethical proposition, etc,etc

τὰ ὄντα ἰέναι τε πάντα καὶ μένειν οὐδέν”

-Heraclitus, a wise old codger if there ever was one

This is a common dead-end that the Stirnerite rebellion against all universals leads to.

You do remember the phrase "render unto Ceasar" correct?

There simply is no authentic self divorced from the social context that such concepts come from in the first place.

But what is important is what is labeling the context. What is determing the logical facts in place. What is categorizing them, and why is it doing the categorizing. Is something universally sublime, or do you feel sublime towards something?

You are always your authentic self doing the contextualizing. We are in the world of Nietzsche, the world of perspectivism. I think (?) the only arguments people could try to counter with this may be some form of scientism, and I don't think any of us are in that camp. There is no authentic social context without self. Society is something that is contextualized by one's will. I and Thou is theology.

Logic; if that is your criterion for ethics, isn't so much to concern itself with assertions, but simply that which can be unasserted. Ethics do not belong in such a category as philosophy if they are to exist at all. It is the wrong "language game" at best they are important nonsense.

And while I get my immense joys and profits out of reading old Aristotle's teleological system, this is some form of personal psychology (or art, etc) and nothing more...or less. The "teleology" is the semantic trick, everything exists by sheer neccessity.

NOTE: I have been a little hot towards you, and I do apologize for that. Despite, I think, my intense aesthetic differences, I do find many of your posts quite valuable and interesting.

Re: Agorism is funny

Brainpolice — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:53:05 GMT

If I tell you to be a good pianist (one ought) practice 5 times a day for 1 hrs a day, and you call that ethics, fine. I just call it advice with a pretentious and outdated name.

To be clear: EVERYTHING is authentic self interest, once again poetic illustration. That means you're not doing things for agorism or liberty or whatever, you're doing it for self.

My point is that there's no real distinction once someone has internalized a given concept. It also follows from this that it makes no sense to critisize people for being motivated by concepts that they have identified with. This is a common dead-end that the Stirnerite rebellion against all universals leads to. It's mostly pretentious finger-wagging at other people for making use of universals in their language, while never being able to explain how anyone could possibly function without using them or be a "unique" in Stirner's dubious sense. There simply is no authentic self divorced from the social context that such concepts come from in the first place.

Oh, and you can't really separate oneself from the environment, it is kind of impossible.

Which is exactly part of why Stirner's notions fail. The notion of a total rebellion against "external" determinants of thought represented in those pesky universals is elitist nonsense. Seriously, any understanding of language after the 1930's makes that silly.

Re: Agorism is funny

liberty student — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:52:08 GMT

William, you are great. Rage on. Rage on.

Re: Agorism is funny

William — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:39:51 GMT

I'm trying to understand your recent outbursts on 'left' libertarians William. I'm having a difficult time.

Interest of the week/month I suppose. I was around an awful (and I stress awful) lot of them for the holidays, so I am probably venting. That said, as far as politics is concerned, they have always bothered me more as they are more in control of dialogue, culture, signaling devices, etc. Not only that they simply make less sense, as they tend to be nothing other than the inheritors of functioning theological terms. The "right" really isn't much other than a disorganized boogy man, you may even bring up the argument that leftism IS politics. They are universalists and a cancer that by it's own nature has to spread, because that is what leftism is, I have yet to see it prove itself to be anything else. It is leftism or bust, it can't just leave itself alone and it won't let you separate from it.

It is made up of illusionists who will do nothing but give you moral imperatives (expressed in absolute stagnant words, in an ever changing ever unique environment, of all things!), and their moral imperatives are nothing but spirit, and spirit is nothing if I say it ain't so.

Re: Agorism is funny

William — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:25:37 GMT

how is a guide for action that is completely divorced from ethics (construed as none other than a normative guide to action) a coherant concept?

If I tell you to be a good pianist (one ought) practice 5 times a day for 1 hrs a day, and you call that ethics, fine. I just call it advice with a pretentious and outdated name.

what sense does it make to lambast them for going against themselves

You can never go against yourself, it is impossible. Unless of course, we are talking in poetic terms to illustrate action. And that is what I am doing, illustrating an action, as I already pointed out. And frankly, agorism is an incoherent concept that has the potential to lead many wide-eyed kids into silly actions. I was simply telling people to check themselves before they wreck themselves yo. Likewise, I would tell them to simply get rid of the name "agorism" what good does it do you, unless you're trying to get in with the cool kids on campus of course.

authentic self-interest would be some sort of neutralized instinct that one attempts to completely separate from environment.

To be clear: EVERYTHING is authentic self interest, once again poetic illustration. That means you're not doing things for agorism or liberty or whatever, you're doing it for self. Likewise "agorism" is only acting in "agorisms interests" and telling you what is in "agorisms interests". Or to use a more appropriate name "universalist social signaling encouraging people to use the black market". It is a manipulation device.

So when you try to act for the "sake of agorism", or to be "an agorist" what the hell are you doing and why? Is agorism trying to be a "brainpolice"? See if anything I am trying to give advice or illustrate action, not give ethics.

Oh, and you can't really separate oneself from the environment, it is kind of impossible.